As was with pangolins example earlier, thats slippery slope fallacy. Sure, it is a possiblity, but possibility does not equal certainty.
once again, TO mode is legitimate preference, not whinning.
meeting demand with supply is hardly bowing down to whinning. whole thai VT-4 situation, THAT was bowing down to whinning of minority.
well true but its not the main mean of searching for a game and never was as far as i know.
allright, but is this inherently a bad thing? Same argument could be used against addition of naval.
“People playing naval not only splits the playerbase, but naval only players also dont spend money on high tier jets and high tier tanks so why gaijin should add naval.”
again, slippery slope fallacy.
Also, once again, meeting demand with supply is completely legitimate business strategy. If demand for game mode is large enough (ie. theres significant portion of playerbase asking for it), why shouldnt gaijin shouldnt gaijin do it?
To force people play in mode they have no interest in playing to…what end, exactly? Whats the long term business plan here? To allienate a part of your customers so that they quit and go for alternatives, thus never ever again spending money on your products? This doesnt make sense from business standpoint.
At specific BRs with specific? Id say its the only viable mean to counter CAS (think 7.7 france). At other BRs, like in the example I provided? Not so much, due to reasons ive already talked about (less time before you can start your attack, smaller window to counter it).
I would stay away from this since warthunder is, in its core, a game. If you ever respawned in a battle, its already diverging from reality as you dont get to respawn IRL, and I could give more examples where Warthunders logic diverges from reality.
Further, within certain conflic which should not be named, at least in its initial stages, most of the air kills were done with infantry carrying MANPADS - and we dont have infantry in game.
Id personally tweak it the same way SP cost was tweaked for A2G ordnance, just in opposite direction - A2A belts and munitions would cost much less.
Id be against the removal of SP system in its entiriety, as its important part of how battles play out - its a resource and its managmnet adds another layer to the game.
But thats neither here or there.
Allright but your proposed solution just replaces RB system with SIM one. Why not go to play SIM at this point which already has this setup, with no further changes being neccesary?
(would that be like saying “Just go play another game/mode”?)
Better yet, why not add this as additional and optional EC mode, on top of already existing GRB format? That way people who want quick fun match could remain in current GRB games, and people who want more complex games that last longer can play this EC mode.
Why demand drastic changes to current GRB format and at the same time deny alternatives?
aight but this statement of yours shows clear bias towards air, as you want to turn off only the white noise that claims “CAS OP”, if im reading what you wrote correctly.
But there are also people that try to massively undersell effectivness and effectivity of CAS as to not get their “fun toys” nerfed; while these “fun toys” ruin entire lobbies except for select few. What I mean to say, “other side” is guilty of this as well.
Sensibile discussion can be had (us two currently talking would be example of that), but I dont believe way to reach it is through entirely silencing opposition you dont agree with.
Which is why it likely wont happen, so that cant be solution.
Just food for thought, to which you dont have to answer, you say that adding TO mode would split the playerbase, wouldnt solve CAS issues, could lead to other people demanding their “pet modes” as you put it, but you would expect such drastic and massive change to current format of game to go through “smoothly” without allienatind large portion of playerbase, simply put? Despite TO mode being much easier to implement?
But nonetheless i will adress the points you made further.
I agree that the kill camera, at least the one showing path of the projectile and where it penetrated, is extremely crucial tool for analyzing what happened and determining what you couldve done better or to expose bugs - think how few weeks back reversing away from APHE spamming autocannons made it ignore your armor. without kill camera, it take longer to discover AND gain traction, so dev response couldve been even slower.
“Snapshot” of killers position could probably go in its entiriety, but projectile kill cam should stay in the game, as way to decrease frustration.
Without “snapshot” of killers position, it doesnt reveal more than general direction from which the shell came, but I now know how was I killed. Im willing to bet my shoes that removing it entirely would lead to massive exodus of current playerbase and increase of one death leavers (which is literally the last thing we need), because if its one thing frustrating more than dying, its not knowing how you died. Id be fine without knowing how I died, but I doubt new player with few hours only would want to stay and grow if he I dunk on him six times in one game with Somua.
This isnt like Rising Storm 2 Vietnam where im completly fine throwing myself into meat grinder at the Hue City walls 50x times per one game, because in Rising Storm 2 Vietnam, I dont have to unlock weapons; whereas in Warthunder the speed at which I unlock things and gain SL is directly tied to how well you perform in game.
Is it slippery slope fallacy? Maybe. But I have an actual reason for believing such drastic change would leave to mostly negative consequences.
That id agree on. For top tier, also moving airfields more back.
Im indiferent to this one.
Oh yeah, I sadly remember that. Absolute circus.
Again Im indifferent to this one.
Weve already talked about this earlier. Would it be buff to WW2 SPAA? Definetively. Would I personally see it as further arcadization of GRB? Yes and thats why I dont agree with this proposal.
We also talked about this already, so I will just shortly remind my stance - no until maps are fixed.
Same reason as above.
Weve also talked about this before, so im just again gonna remind my stance - no until maps are fixed and lineup holes that would result from such change are fixed.
Actually id agree with this one.
not sure about this one. few weeks ago there was this proposal that would allow anyone to spawn AI controlled AA into which they themselves could jump into (just like the current multi vehicle SAMs at top tier), and simply put such proposal would shaft the entire SP economy.
Talked about this earlier in this comment.
If im understanding this correctly, under this proposal, I could spawn without any restriction on any CAP.
I absolutely disagree, this would be chaos, would absolutely butcher the game flow and could be abused (I spawn a speedy go-kart in 7.7 match, rush and cap point closest to the enemy, Jout, spawn a Maus directly in their line of advance, without any drawbacks such as having to travel there from spawn).
IIRC this was present in last season of world war, as well as WW1 april fools day mode. It really did not add that much to the game mode in regards of entertaiment.
Also I absolutely do not believe Gaijin with its current spaghetti code wouldnt make them act like the curret AI Gepards in SIM do, ie. attacking at ranges vastly exceeding engagement distances of player controlled units and tracking units through solid ground.
Sounds interesting, but ultimately puts aviablity of my resource (arty) in hands of complete stranger, betting it all on a chance that this complete stranger will not only play CAP, but be competent at it enough to protect the arty.
I dont know about you, but from my most recent experience with WT playerbase, I wouldnt entrust them to watch over some random pile of dirt, much less so with protection of such important resource.
This would ultimately lead to more frustration as I could be stripped of resources without doing anything wrong. Sorry, but no, thanks.
I would basically be forced to play CAP each game just to ensure that tank players have fair shot at wining, or play exclusively with buddy that would exclusively play CAP.
Same issue with arty, now there would be a good chance that Id lose on tickets to CAS plane outside of GRB map area, because some random stranger playing CAP cant breathe and use his brain at the same time, as it doesnt have the neccesary mental capacity, again leading to more frustration on my part.
So again Id be forced to play CAP.
Once again, same issue as the previous ones.
All and all, these proposals would change GRB entirely, at that point it would be entirely different game. So why not go play game that offers such complexity right off the bad, or add this as separate game mode next to GRB? Why propose so many drastic changes to GRB while denying alternatives?
Ive already dealt with this earlier in my response. So just to reiterate - No its not whinning. Wheres demand gaijin can provide supply. If demand is large enough to justify addition, why it shouldnt be added.
Again, slippery slope fallacy.
Where additional game modes could fracture the playerbase, your proposals to drastically change GRB from the ground up without providing alternative could kill the playerbase entirely. Fractured playerbase is preferable to dead playerbase.
While fair, I sadly think emotions might be clouding your judgment on certain aspects.
Will have to think about it more, few ideas I have arent coherent enough to present as solution and are full of holes.
Tho I will say that instead of trying to make one giant “one gamemode fits all”, why not just add all the A2G munitions with all the bells and whistles, but limit their use to air modes? That way, players can still run SEAD and FnF brimstones sorties in air modes, while GRB remains playable for tank players.
Sure, to be expected, but when was the last time you had to wait more than few seconds at most for a game, during peak hours (ie. not at 4am) and some unpopular BR range? At most wait time would increase by few more seconds.
One legitimate concern im willing to concede upon, however:
A) its not CAS aviability that would be the main driving factor, but rather aviability of counters to CAS.
B) Could be simply solved by having its own BR system, just like arcade, realistic and sim have.
And how do we know that there would be “MM difficulties” and how do we know how large these would be?
I highly doubt that unless you provide evidence.
same as previous point.
again, slippery slope fallacy. Ive had games where no CAS was spawned at all. These all happened in GRB with current rules and current maps, and they played exactly the same.
But completly changing GRB for the ground up wouldnt have this issue?
Completly fair and understandable position, even If i dont agree with it. If anything, “CAS whiners” would migrate over to TO, leaving the discussions about CAS OP, making it easier to have sober discussions about CAS issues.
This again circles back to the fact that you want to fundamentally and drastically change GRB.